The model number might suggest it was an upgrade from the C40 but no. Although the C41 was several years newer, it had nowhere near the features of the C40 and was a fairly basic pre, plus it was around a grand cheaper.
There weren't many C41 made so it's also quite rare, but it might well sound as good as a C40; only someone who has compared them would know.
I haven't heard a C40 but it was Mac's TOTL single chassis pre of that generation. If you can find one and you can live without the remote, I'm quite sure it sounds fantastic and possibly as good as the current single chassis pres.
I have the C712 which was the the entry level of the same generation as the C40, and the 712 sounds sounds wonderful to me, so the C40 would have to sound at least as good and likely better.
A curious thing about those mid 90's pres that hopefully someone could explain; according to the specs, they have the highest S/N of any Mac pres I've seen, and yet Ron-C says the newer ones are quieter. How can this be?
As for the C40 being the only pre of that generation without remote, I suspect it may be because it had a true stepped volume attenuator which is more complex and quite large, so maybe it wasn't feasible or practical to attach a motor; but perhaps someone here more knowledgeable could answer that.
The sound of the C40 is VERY impressive......now I can only compare it to my refurbed and recapped C32 which it completely blows out of the water.......
I noted its specs too......I tell people it has the same SNR and THD as the new models, its so close you'd never be able to tell the difference.....My black background of my system became a whole lot 'blacker' (is that a word?') when the C40 was put in the system....
The audio controls on the remote models are in fact just digital encoders (they are usually optical) rather than motors on regular analouge controls....
This allows then to keep all the analogue path right at the back of the unit by all the connectors and have no audio routing past power supplies and picking RFI etc etc......
I think the remote capable replacement for the c40 was the c42 if memory serves me right.
This is correct as I discovered in my research when I was buying a pre-amp.......
I stayed away from the C42 as it was the first attempt at digitizing the audio controls for Mc, and they didn't quite get it right, for the volume, rather than it reacting as though it were a analogue control with about 300˚ on rotation for a full sweep, you would have to wind and wind and wind doing multiple turns with the encoder.
Apparently the EQ controls were the same....
That to me is bad control ballistics, some of the early digital mixing consoles were like this too, makes it difficult to control things when they behave like that....
By by the C46 they got it right though, and I am looking forward to getting a C48 or C2500 some time later in the year.....
clock and went back to using c-22 while they were still available. And I totally agree with you about the tone controls steps being to large. I really enjoy the tone controls on my C-34 for that reason and My MX-120. Having the 1 db change on the 120 is wonderful. The big thing I miss is being able to adjust the left and right separately from each other. On some classical recordings I always feel the treble needs to be kicked up a notch or two to get the right presentation of the Cellos and double basses. Just adding more signal with the balance control is not the solution. Everytime I would see Davie Obrien after the C-32 came out I asked when Mac was going to use coaxial controls for the graphic EQ's.
